francolargo

It seems to me that a fully functioning HQP NAA with the Botic patches would be good for HQP adoption. Jussi, would you share your specific observations with Meiro? He expressed a willingness to work on the issues.

Thanks for the thoughts! I have the DAC covered - current DAC is DIY with 3 es9018s and IIR crossover filters running in ALSA under Botic clock control. I'd like to improve on those IIR filters if possible. Detailed specifications from Solidrun are not near the surface of CuBox promotional materials. It looks like CuBox and its 'hummingboard' counterparts use a MAX9277 serializer. If true, then probably not sufficient capacity for 6 mono channels of DSD - probably 4 DSD channels would be the max. Perhaps this summer I can experiment with matrix processing for multi-amping with output as up-sampled PCM, for which a BBB might suffice. Next project is to mess with a 'no-DAC' flip-flop module plus pcm -> dsd conversion. Then the question will be whether PCM -> DSD conversion is still better, and by how much... All the best!

Thanks very much! Would you expect that an ARM-based NAA could handle 6 channels of, say, 192kHz or 2X DSD data?

A quick thread search has not found an answer to my question: Can I run 3 different convolutions on one stereo signal and route the results to separate outputs (for multi-amping)? [2 'whole' channels -> 6 'partial' channels] TIA!

This has probably been answered but searches didn't find anything and 166 pages is just too much reading. I'm totally new to Signalyst and am hoping to run the desktop OS X version. I sometimes use Logic DAW and Final Cut video editing software on this machine, yet would like to make PCM->DSD the default audio path. Can/will my chosen Signalyst filters also be accessed by other programs that render sound? If so, any setup hints? TIA!

Greetings again, Ajax "Your ability to implement a mobo/CPU/memory upgrade"... ...really only shows that I am cheap! It's plug-n-play! And it is for that reason that I build a lot of my own audio gear. Not that I'm particularly good at it, but I'm willing to experiment, to fail, and to enjoy what sounds good. Best wishes and enjoy the music! Over and out...

Ajax: Interesting comparison because I also have a deluxe Mac Pro in my 'home office' that I use for a DAW (Logic Pro) along with an Edirol USB ADC/DAC interface into cute little Mackie balanced monitors. It's true that for the PC platform there is less overall control over important parameters when running sound through Quicktime. Sample latency has been particularly influential on my PCs, but I am of the opinion that practically *everything* ultimately matters to some degree. I have the high-zoot DACs and analog goods on the PC in the living room, so my experiences with Quicktime are the opposite from yours - the PC *seems to* sound better. Here's one: I recently had to replace the mobo, CPU, and memory on that same 'entertainment' PC (the one mentioned above). I replaced an MSI board with a Gigabyte board containing extra heavy copper in the power plane and ground planes. That feature was designed to enhance heat dissipation and therefore assist in passive cooling. The sound improvement from that mobo/CPU/memory upgrade - no change in any of the non-driver software - was certainly not subtle. Of course, I was delighted and had no inkling that these core components would have so much influence. So that just helps reinforce my opinion that one should keep an open mind and test. I'll leave the tests of the JRiver software until after my current DIY DAC/preamp consolidation is finished... One of my goals is to feed the DACs the cleanest possible I2S to help lower the sample latency they need. Cheers!

I understand the general desire to achieve 'bit-true' output based on the history of audio signals being abused by computer operating systems. However, it may not be safe to assume that every non-'bit-true' signal is necessarily inferior. I very happily use Win7 (32 bit) with Quicktime (@96/24) and WASAPI. Win7 enables me to use Thuneau crossover software, which outputs via ASIO. [There are no working Win7 sound controls in my system, but the crossover offers a number of modifications.] My satisfaction with this configuration is based on four observations: 1) my Wolfson DACs truly sound better with an upsampled 24 bit signal than with a 44.1 kHz/16 bit 'bit true' signal (although my ESS 9018 DAC sounds about the same because it first upsamples everything it receives); 2) based on sound quality, the Quicktime upsampler (with padding to 24 bits) is as good as any other algorithm I have tried; 3) the sound quality of the 24 bit software crossover has proven to be very pleasing (of course, bi-amping is required!); 4) I appreciate the convenience of the ALAC file format and my network contains a mix of Win7 and OS X systems. With 96kHz/24bit source material, the ALACs via Quicktime are stunning! And even though none of the 44/16 sources leave the computer anywhere near 'bit-true', I'm happy knowing that in MY system they couldn't sound any better. I think experimentation without assumptions is the best way to optimize performance. Your ears are the ultimate truth, not the bit structure of the files you play.